Method, not apology; and a closing CTA that is an offer rather than an instruction
Decided
Three lines were rewritten without any underlying figure or selection changing. The availability note. It explained that the published number is the worst-performing check, phrased as a caveat. A figure that opens by explaining why it looks bad invites a reader to discount it before they know what it measures. The selection has not changed — lib/uptime-monitor.ts still takes the minimum — but it is now stated as method: *we publish the lowest-performing check rather than the average across checks, so a healthy endpoint can never mask a degraded one.* That is the same fact, and it is the reason the fact is worth publishing.
Affects: app/security/page.tsx (measured-availability note), lib/company-profile.ts (OPERATING_PRINCIPLES[0]), app/about/page.tsx (closing section)
The availability note. It explained that the published number is the worst-performing check, phrased as a caveat. A figure that opens by explaining why it looks bad invites a reader to discount it before they know what it measures. The selection has not changed — lib/uptime-monitor.ts still takes the minimum — but it is now stated as method: *we publish the lowest-performing check rather than the average across checks, so a healthy endpoint can never mask a degraded one.* That is the same fact, and it is the reason the fact is worth publishing.
The first operating principle. It read *"performance figures ship with…"*, which is a sentence about our publishing practice. A procurement reviewer is not evaluating our publishing practice. Turned around to the reader's side — *"you can reproduce any number we publish"* — it commits to the same thing as something they can act on in the session they are already scheduling.
The closing CTA. *"Bring a job you have already quoted"* is an imperative, and an imperative on a closing CTA reads as a demand no matter how friendly the copy under it is. *"See it run on one of your own quotes"* is the same ask stated as what the reader gets, and the body copy now leads with the format and the length — twenty minutes, a solutions engineer — because those are what a reader needs to decide, not what we intend to prove.
What would have to change for this to be wrong. If the uptime monitor ever starts averaging across checks, the /security sentence becomes false and must change with it.